Again, you're not addressing the point.... the laws of the state were never talked about at all, I have no idea why you're bringing them up? Even more ironically, you're claiming "that's what an unbeliever would do"!!
And the fact he has authority over the law is completely irrelevant.
I said if God's original Old Testament law was perfect, just and moral, then why would it require modification? Perfect things require no change, as it's impossible to make perfection better.
here is a book that may make some sense:
HEBREWS 7:19—Was the Law of Moses perfect or imperfect?
PROBLEM: The psalmist declared that the “law of the Lord is perfect” (Ps. 19:7). It reflects the very character of God (cf. Lev. 11:45). Yet the writer of Hebrews insists that “the law made nothing perfect” (7:19), and thus God brought in a “better covenant” (v. 22). This, he contends, would not have been necessary “if that first covenant had been faultless” (Heb. 8:7). So, who is right? Is the law perfect or imperfect?
SOLUTION: The law was perfect in its nature, but imperfect in its results. It was a perfect expression of God’s righteousness, but an imperfect means of making man righteous. Of course, that is not the fault of the law itself or the purpose for which God gave it. For the law was never given to redeem sinners (Titus 3:5–6; Rom. 4:5), but to reveal sin. As a standard and means of revealing sin, the law was an impeccable norm and teacher. But it was only “our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). Like a mirror, the law was intended to reveal our imperfections as we look into it; but it, no more than the mirror, was intended to correct our imperfections. So the law is perfect in itself, as a rule and revealer of sin, but it is imperfect as a means of empowering us to overcome sin.
from
Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 516
